Bob Russell: Did the problem that the hon. Gentleman's Bill addresses exist when he took over the housing portfolio in Bolton almost a quarter of a century ago?

Brian Iddon: The Department for Communities and Local Government and I have been in close contact with the Council of Mortgage Lenders, and we are aware of its feelings about the Bill. We listened to outside organisations, and amendments were made to the original Bill, so the Bill before us addresses some of those objections. I am not sure to which two amendments the hon. Gentleman has referred, but we believe that we have satisfied the Council of Mortgage Lenders. We hope that, if the Bill does not satisfy it, the accompanying regulations will. We want to carry all organisations with us.
	Following the representations that were made to the Government by the external sponsors of the Bill, in 2009 the DCLG published a consultation document, "Lender repossession of residential property: protection of tenants". The consultation on that document closed on 14 October, and we still await its findings, although I believe that they are almost ready for publication.
	A combination of rising house prices, the credit crunch and the difficulty of getting anything like a 100 per cent. mortgage means that home ownership is out of reach for most people-certainly more and more. Consequently, more people than for a long time have been attracted to the private rented sector. There are now 3 million households in that growing sector; in England alone, 14 per cent. of households live in it.
	We have seen the buy-to-let market grow, too, as a result of those changes. Most tenancies are assured shorthold tenancies, usually of six or 12 months' duration. Landlords can gain possession of such tenancies by giving only two months' notice outside the fixed term. Most buy-to-let landlords pay a commercial rate on their lending and a higher arrangement fee than domestic or residential borrowers in order to purchase suitable properties. I want to make it clear that the Bill does not apply to the normal buy-to-let market.
	Most owner-occupier mortgages prevent the borrower from renting their property without the lender's consent. However, a significant number of people have been borrowing money without telling the lender that they intend to buy a property to let to a tenant or tenants. As a consequence, those so-called residential-turned-let-RTL-tenancies are considered to be unauthorised in law, and the tenants are unprotected by the relevant housing legislation. If, therefore, their landlord defaults on the loan and the lender seeks to repossess the property, the tenants will lose their right to two months' notice and may face homelessness. That applies even if they are within the fixed term of the tenancy agreement.
	Unauthorised tenancies can arise in other ways. People become reluctant landlords. They might inherit a property that they cannot sell or move to another property-perhaps in another town to find a job-and find it difficult to sell the one from which they have moved. In either case, they might decide to rent out a mortgaged property to a tenant without informing the lender. Some owner-occupiers might find themselves in financial difficulty and move to alternative accommodation-to live with relatives or friends, for example-and generate income by renting out their property to a tenant, again without telling the lender. In a recession, the number of owner-occupiers choosing that option is likely to increase.
	It is very difficult to count how many repossessions involve RTL tenancies. The DCLG estimates that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 such repossession cases last year, but advice agencies believe that that is the tip of the iceberg. The DCLG estimates that there are currently 324,000 RTL households. Many of those tenants, especially if they are single, are not entitled to housing from their local authority should they become homeless. Consequently, they do not end up on any registers when they lose their homes, so it is difficult to count them. Instead, they have to make alternative accommodation arrangements, perhaps by moving in with friends or relatives, if they can.
	Citizens Advice now deals with about 1,000 homelessness inquiries a year as a result of the problem, and Shelter's website advice page on RTL mortgages had more than 12,500 hits between June 2008 and October 2009. In a Crisis survey of advisers who help people to access the private rented sector, more than 60 per cent. said that they had been in contact with someone whose landlord had had a property repossessed. Undoubtedly, that is an increasingly important problem, which urgently needs the legislation that I am introducing.
	If a property has been rented to an unauthorised, or RTL, tenant, the only warning that the tenant may receive of repossession before the initial court hearing or the issuing of a notice of eviction is a notice that the lender must now address to "The Tenant or Occupier". Those notices often go astray or remain unopened, and sometimes they are buried in piles of junk mail, especially in blocks of flats. Before 2009, when secondary legislation was brought in, notices were addressed only to "The Occupier". The Government changed the legislation in the hope that more tenants would open such correspondence and engage in repossession proceedings, but that is difficult.
	Many RTL tenants first realise that they might be homeless only when bailiffs turn up on their doorstep to repossess the property. Some RTL tenants have arrived home to find that locks have been changed while they have been away from the property, at work or on holiday. I think that all Members will consider that to be unacceptable. The Bill is aimed at giving greater protection to this group of tenants.

James Duddridge: I, too, was concerned about that. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) discussed the reliance on the words, "a period". By substituting the words, "a single period", we would solve the problem, and that might be something that could be considered in Committee to clarify the position.

Philip Davies: Perhaps we could combine the great talent on these Benches with that phrase. However, replacing
	"a period not exceeding two months"
	with "one period not exceeding two months" would put the position beyond doubt. As the provision is currently worded, there is still some doubt, because as long as the period lasts no more than two months, application can be made for more than one delay. The insertion of the word "one" would be extremely helpful, and I genuinely hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East will consider that proposal as the Bill progresses.
	Finally, I understand that the Council of Mortgage Lenders has raised the issue of the notice given to the tenant of the hearings. The Bill asks the lender to write to them to explain the process and the fact that there is going to be a possession hearing. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) made it clear that there could be data protection issues, and I think that that may well be the case. I would not want the Bill inadvertently to stumble, because it clashed with data protection requirements. The Council of Mortgage Lenders makes a good point in suggesting that it would be helpful if the notice to the tenant of the possession hearing came from the court, rather than from the lender. That would be beneficial for two reasons: first, it might avoid the data protection issues that could make the mortgage lender nervous. Even it were proved that it was not in breach of data protection laws, there might be a slightly chilling effect, as it might avoid doing something because it did not want to risk becoming involved in data protection issues. If the court service sent out the letter, that would certainly help with that problem.
	Secondly, such a letter would help to ensure that people are aware of the proceedings that are under way. A letter sent to the tenant by the court would be much more likely to be opened and carefully scrutinised by the recipient than a letter from, perhaps, a mortgage lender with whom the recipient has hitherto had no relationship. Again, I hope the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East accepts that that provision would in no way affect the terms of his Bill or the purpose behind it. It would not prevent people from solving the problem that they find themselves in, but it would improve the process in the Bill and make it more robust. It would ensure that people who find themselves in a terrible situation through no fault of their own, when they have done absolutely nothing wrong, as when unauthorised tenants are faced with eviction simply because of the relationship between the landlord and the mortgage lender, have the safety net that the hon. Gentleman is trying to provide.
	I do not wish to go on, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East said, we have other important business to get through. However, I hope the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East reflects on those points of detail-I consider them points of detail as opposed to points of principle-in our further consideration of the Bill. If we could introduce those minor amendments, we could have a Bill that everybody across the whole industry agrees with, and we could shorten proceedings at future stages of the Bill. Rather than spending time arguing over amendments that I would hope to table on Report, we could move much more quickly and see the Bill become law. I would like it to do so, because it would give important safeguards to people who find themselves in a difficult situation through no fault of their own.
	The Bill would be an appropriate legacy for the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, who has served his constituents and the House with great distinction.

Shahid Malik: I want to put on the record that the Government wholeheartedly support the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants Etc.) Bill, which has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). It would be hard not to support legislation that will help to remove distress and disruption to households who rent in the private sector. The Bill will make the legal process substantially clearer for those tenants affected. It is positive and constructive and enhances protection for those people who rent privately and whose landlords have not requested or received lender consent to let.
	As has been evident in the debate, the issue of short-notice eviction of tenants when their landlord falls into arrears and repossession action starts is by no means straightforward. It is legally complex. The gap in legal protection for tenants faced with that situation is not so much an oversight, but an historical result of myriad housing and mortgage laws pertaining to tenants.
	My hon. Friend eloquently explained the problem and proposed a solution, and I do not intend to repeat what he said. However, I will say that it appears a no-brainer that the House should act to ensure that unauthorised private rented sector tenants are offered some form of legal protection. It cannot be right that a tenant enters into a tenancy agreement in good faith, only to discover that the lack of lender consent to let means that in fact they are unauthorised tenants with no rights or protections against the lender.

Shahid Malik: I was going to make precisely the point that the Bill perhaps does not deal with a number of issues that could be addressed in Committee. One thing is clear: the core rationale behind the Bill is shared by all of us. My hon. Friend himself said that there was a clear, conscious decision to make the Bill as discrete as possible to ensure its progress. That does not mean, however, that other related matters pertaining to it cannot be dealt with in Committee.
	This time last year, the issue of unauthorised tenants affected by lender repossession action against their landlord was beginning to be drawn to public and media attention, for which I would like chiefly to thank the advice sector and organisations such as Shelter, Citizens Advice, Crisis and the Chartered Institute of Housing. I thank those organisations for the time that they spent working on ideas to address the issue, including in the joint report, "A private matter?" which was published in March 2009.

Shahid Malik: I am not in the habit of guessing-I will leave that to others, who can do so in Committee.
	In fact, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government was ahead of the organisations I mentioned. A report published on 24 February 2009 identified the issue and called on the Government to produce guidance to stipulate how lenders should act when tenants are discovered in a property that they are repossessing. In addition, the Department for Communities and Local Government ministerial postbag started to receive details of individual cases in which tenants were suffering from eviction at very short notice as a result of landlord repossession. Common themes included the lack of information available to the tenant, the complaint that no one would listen to tenants, and tenants' great distress at needing to find an alternative home so abruptly. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) alluded to the fact that some tenants find out that a property is being repossessed without being told themselves, which I do not advocate. Clearly, that situation did not seem right and needed investigating. As a result, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) announced on 13 May 2009 the Government's commitment to legislate at the earliest opportunity to provide better protection for tenants in repossession cases.
	As my hon. Friend already mentioned, the Department issued a consultation over the summer, "Lender repossession of residential property: protection of tenants", to which there were more than 30 responses. The responses recognised that short-notice eviction was a very real issue. There was equal recognition that action needed to be taken. I am pleased that a large number of local authorities responded to the consultation. They were extremely supportive of the need to ensure that tenants in that situation were given adequate notice to find alternative accommodation, and cited recent examples of properties being repossessed when tenants were living there. The problem is real and it has real consequences for people's lives.
	It would be remiss of me not to mention the lender sector, which also responded to the consultation document, either directly or via representative bodies such as the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) mentioned, the Building Societies Association, or the Financing and Leasing Association.

Shahid Malik: Obviously, I am not familiar with the individual case, but we have made our view clear. In difficult times, a decent society would wish to be compassionate to people in difficult circumstances. I am therefore pleased that the Government's interventions and programmes have meant, for example-this is a factual point and not party political-that the number of repossessions is half the rate it was during the last recession. I note the interesting statistic that in 1992 quarter 1 homelessness due to mortgage arrears was running at 12 per cent., but in Q3 of 2009 it was 3 per cent. Intervention helps, and compassion is at the core of that.
	Unfortunately, the lender is often unable to help because they are reliant on the tenant making themselves known to them. For obvious reasons, that is not always possible and it can often happen too late in the process. In addition, unless the Bill is enacted, there is currently no official mechanism for tenants to engage with the court repossession process and no opportunity for the judge to take them into account when making a decision on repossession.
	The process of lender engagement in this issue tends to be ad hoc and certainly tenant experiences are not universal. Worried and vulnerable tenants need some clarity in the steps that they should take to prevent themselves from being made homeless at short notice. My hon. Friend's Bill would achieve that.
	I recognise some of the concerns raised by the lender sector about the Bill in response to the consultation document. While the need for tenants to have some opportunity to engage with the repossession process is key, it is recognised that some lenders feel the Bill to be complex and want to ensure that it is proportionate to the scale of the problem. That is a reassurance that my hon. Friend has been keen to give, and I can assure those stakeholders and the House that the Bill is indeed a proportionate response to the problem, given that it is clear that the various stages can be invoked only by an unauthorised tenant under threat of short-notice eviction as a result of landlord arrears and repossession. I would also argue that a Bill with only two substantive clauses is relatively simple. I understand that the secondary regulations also give further reassurances on processes that the tenant and lender will need to go through.

Stewart Jackson: I begin by echoing the comments of other hon. Members and warmly thanking the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). He has made contributions to a number of things, not only as a dedicated and assiduous constituency Member since 1997, but as someone who has helped to improve our understanding of science in Parliament and, from my personal point of view, done excellent work as secretary of the all-party group on Pakistan, which I have the honour to chair. I also pay tribute to the coalition of organisations that have pushed for the Bill, which includes Shelter, Crisis, the Chartered Institute of Housing, Citizens Advice, the Residential Landlords Association and the Council of Mortgage Lenders.
	The Bill is commendably short, with only four clauses, and it is an important step towards readdressing the balance in favour of tenants, while protecting the position of mortgage lenders. Under the assured shorthold tenancy regime, all tenants should receive at least two months' notice where their landlord requires possession, so long as the tenant is not in default. However, as we have already heard, it is currently the case that unauthorised tenants have limited rights when their landlord faces repossession. As we know, sometimes the tenants might not find out that the lender is repossessing the property until the last minute. There have been cases, for example, where the first indication is notification from the bailiff or, in some extreme cases, the bailiff turning up on the doorstep to take over the property.
	In that situation, individuals and families are left with little or no time to find alternative accommodation and avoid homelessness, which cannot be fair. I believe that we have a moral obligation to put unauthorised tenants of a defaulting borrower on the same footing as others in the private rented sector. All tenants, subject to certain safeguards, including payment, should be able to require the lender to delay possession for a period of up to two months, so that they have a realistic opportunity to make alternative arrangements and find somewhere else to live.
	I welcome the fact that the Bill has received Government backing, and I assure the House that my party is keen to see it progress and become law. We will do everything that we can to facilitate that. The Bill has received cross-party support and has been welcomed by all the major housing industry organisations. That is testament to the importance of filling the gap that exists in the legal protection for private tenants whose landlords are repossessed. For that reason, I want to put on record my disappointment at the Government's failure to act sooner.
	As early as May last year, in a Department for Communities and Local Government press release issued on 13 May, in response to the Rugg and Rhodes review and following a great deal of Conservative pressure, the Government announced their intention to legislate "at the earliest opportunity" to give unauthorised tenants more time to find alternative accommodation and avoid homelessness. However, the Government failed to take the opportunity to table amendments to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, and nothing about this was to be found in the Queen's Speech.
	As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), the pledge to respond to the public consultation that concluded on 14 October has yet to come to fruition. I hope that the Minister will place in the Library a copy of the letter that he is going to write to my hon. Friend to explain why that is the case. Even the DCLG's "Preventing Repossession" factsheet, published on 12 November last year, repeated the pledge that early action would be taken. Clearly, however, that has not happened.
	I shall remind the Minister of what my party called for as long ago as February 2009. We asked the Government to address tenants' concerns in the following ways: by immediately implementing an increased notice period of five to seven weeks for any court repossession hearing; by investigating how lenders could address their communications directly to tenants, rather than sending the usual bland "To the occupier" letter; by encouraging courts and lenders to allow tenants to be heard at repossession hearings; and by asking lenders to consider extending the notice period between a repossession order being made and eviction.

Shahid Malik: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on their swift action to help distressed home owners? The repossession rate is now 50 per cent. of the rate in the early 1990s. Is not that a great example of how this Government have been proactive and intervened, rather than being sluggish, as he has suggested?

Bob Spink: I do not want to divert too far from the subject of the debate, but the issue of the number of houses available for people to rent-particularly social housing-is linked to it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's record on house building has not been good enough-

Stewart Jackson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I believe that we can achieve consensus around the idea that both parties have perhaps not done enough work on the arcane legal and financial rules about, for example, residential investment trusts, which have been very successful on the continent and in North America. Perhaps all the parties need to address to the Treasury the idea that we need to increase provision in the private rented sector. If my party is fortunate to be elected to government, it might look at that issue.
	Unfortunately, despite a consultation in the late summer months, substantive Government action to help unauthorised tenants was not forthcoming, in spite of our being in the midst of a deep recession, with an increased number of landlords defaulting on their mortgage payments. So we must now work hard to get this private Member's Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) made a commitment to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on that some months ago.
	The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East is right to draw to our attention the significant scale of the problem. A major issue here is that no data are available on how many unauthorised tenancies exist in England and Wales. Based on the Government's own figures, it is estimated that 324,000 so-called RTL-residential turned let-households are currently renting from landlords without the lender's permission. The tenants therefore have no rights and would be at risk of short-notice eviction if their landlord were repossessed. It is important to realise that there might be more unauthorised mortgages than anyone imagines, simply because borrowers with buy-to-let mortgages might not have gone through all the required formalities. We know that from anecdotal evidence.
	We owe it to all such tenants to give them some security. The importance of this issue is laid bare when we consider that there could have been up to 3,000 cases of short-notice eviction in 2009 alone. The Government need to do more work on this, and to undertake quantitative and qualitative research to ascertain the scale of the problem. It might be appropriate for them to liaise with Citizens Advice on this issue. Even those lower estimates still represent a huge number of households, many with young children, being thrown out of their homes through no fault of their own.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Gentleman invites me to meander along a path that would take in a review of the housing revenue account and housing benefit. I shall resist the temptation to tarry with him, even though he is an expert on social housing, but I am sure that the Minister heard his suggestion.
	The problem is aggravated by Financial Services Authority rules, which force lenders who are repossessing a property to market it as soon as possible and to obtain the best price that might reasonably be paid at the time.
	On a related note, I should mention that the Bill is a welcome step for landlords as well as tenants. It is vital that we support the private rented sector in increasing general housing supply. This is particularly true where that would bolster social housing, which is under severe pressure from a social housing waiting list that has nearly doubled to more than 1.8 million families under this Government. That is a direct result of their failure to build enough social homes. The Bill will tackle a problem that the Residential Landlords Association believes brings
	"the private rented sector into disrepute".
	More and more, the private rented sector is providing homes for the less well-off and those who cannot afford to buy, so it hardly helps the sector if tenants cannot feel secure in their homes.
	The proposed approach should also be a welcome move for lenders. As the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has pointed out, the two-month period will not add an excessive delay to the system and the lender will still be able to sell the property after that period. Banks are looking for certainty, and want to know that they will be able either to sell a property or to build up a portfolio of property for rent. The certainty of a two-month period will also allow a value to be placed on delays.
	There are a number of issues with the drafting of the Bill that it is apposite to examine, and no doubt that will happen during the course of its passage. Parts of it need to be debated and scrutinised more closely. For example, we need to examine whether the Bill applies not only to conventional mortgage possession proceedings but to independent proceedings brought by a lender against a tenant. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)-my erstwhile hon. Friend-mentioned that point earlier. We should also ascertain whether it is appropriate that the notice to the tenant occupier should be sent by the lender and by not the court service. That point was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).
	We also need to ascertain how we can get past the data protection legislation issue, which the Council of Mortgage Lenders reports is a practical difficulty facing lenders. Also, would the Bill place an onus on unauthorised tenants who receive notice of possession to apply to court at the possession hearing stage and not to delay, knowing that clause 1(4) can be relied on?
	All those issues are by no means insurmountable, and I am confident that the Bill can be refined and improved in Committee. We trust that the Government will give due regard to the potential amendments to clause 1(4) suggested by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the potential amendments to clause 1(7) suggested by the Residential Landlords Association. I got the impression that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East is amenable to a fuller debate on those specific issues.
	Given that repossessions are predicted to rise to 53,000 in 2010, this private Member's Bill is an essential piece of legislation that has been necessary for some time. It has only just emerged that we have crawled out of recession, but that does not mean that the threat of repossession will go away for many in the private rented sector. Although the majority of tenants, particularly those in buy-to-let properties, should expect to be protected from sudden eviction by lender good practice, it is important that a legal minimum exists for those tenants who are not. As the housing market starts to improve, any recovery is likely to be followed by interest rate increases, which may make some mortgages more expensive. There is a possibility that that will lead to investors being unable to afford property and to more tenants having to leave their homes. Thus, as hon. Members have made clear, there may be perverse consequences to improvement in the housing market.
	In conclusion, we strongly welcome this Bill-it is the right way to proceed-and it has genuine cross-party support and support in the housing community. I commend the hon. Gentleman and, if I may say so, this will be a fitting tribute to his dedication, hard work and knowledge in this area. In case we do not have the opportunity to cross swords before the general election, I shall now wish him well in his future life.

Sarah Teather: May I begin, as everyone else has done, by congratulating the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on coming first in the ballot, which is an extraordinary achievement that everybody else envies, and on using that privileged position to introduce a Bill that is supported by the whole House? The impression that I have from today's debate is that any difficulties that people might have with it will be on technical issues that ought to be dealt with in Committee.
	The Bill is long overdue, and the Minister said that it was a "no-brainer" that we needed this legislation. I agree with him, but I wish the Government had come to that view and put this legislation into effect themselves some time ago. He referred to the many previous Housing Ministers who had promised, at different stages, to legislate at the earliest available opportunity. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), who spoke from the Conservative Front Bench, discussed the construction Bill, but I was hoping that at least we would see this legislation as an amendment to the Financial Services Bill. The Government seemed to be indicating to housing charities that that was what was going to happen, but at the last minute these provisions disappeared from that Bill and no such provisions were introduced. Thank goodness, therefore, that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East stepped into the breach. However, grateful I am, as indeed the whole House is, that he did so, I am not sure that it is appropriate to use a private Member's Bill to get through legislation to which the Government say they are committed. Unfortunately, it was remiss of the Government that they did not legislate earlier.
	I was pleased to hear the Minister say throughout his contribution that he is very supportive of the Bill, and the Department has supported the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East in drafting it. What I want to hear from the Government is not only that they are supportive, but that they will guarantee that parliamentary time is made available to ensure that the Bill gets on to the statute book, because it is long overdue and desperately needed.
	As other hon. Members have said, charities such as Shelter and Crisis have been campaigning for this for a long time. Citizens advice bureaux have been warning for a number of years about the cases they have seen in which the first that tenants know about the likelihood of their losing their home is when they find that the locks have been changed. I do not wish to cover everything that other hon. Members have said, given that we are all broadly supportive of the Bill. However, it is worth picking up on a couple of the points with which I particularly agreed.
	The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East explained the difficulties for landlords and why they may sometimes not tell their mortgage provider things. It is worth our understanding why that might happen in order to understand how as many as 300,000 tenants may be in unauthorised tenancy agreements.

Julie Morgan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I am delighted to present this Bill to the House. It is important for many reasons, the first of which is clearly the protection of children. I have been pleased to receive the support of Members from all parties in the House. I am also grateful for the support of the Government and the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who is responsible for public health.
	I am grateful to those MPs from my party and other parties who are sponsoring the Bill and, in particular, I thank Cancer Research UK, the British Medical Association, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Local Government Association for their wholehearted support. At this point, I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James), who has campaigned tirelessly on the issue for many years. I was lucky enough to draw No. 5 in the ballot for private Members' Bills. She has done a lot of the work over many years, so we are working together to try to get this Bill through the House.
	I also want to thank all those Members who have signed early-day motion 537. Today, the number of signatures is 164. As all Members know, that is a large number of signatures for an early-day motion, so I am thankful for the support of so many people throughout the House.
	It is also clear that this Bill will be popular with the public. Some 87 per cent. of the UK public believe that those aged under 18 should not use sunbeds. I am pleased to report that I went with other Members to No. 10 Downing street this week to hand in a petition signed by more than 10,000 people thanks to  The Sun newspaper, which has run a long, vigorous campaign on the issue, too.
	The Bill is very important, as the intention is to protect young people. The Bill aims to prevent under-18s from accessing sunbeds, seeks to create a duty on sunbed businesses to prevent the use of sunbeds by under-18s and gives local enforcement officers powers to inspect salons and penalise salon operators if under-18s are found to be using sunbeds. It also contains provisions to introduce regulations to ensure that under-18s cannot hire or buy sunbeds, that all sunbed salons are staffed and that clear and accurate health information is displayed in all salons and other places where sunbeds are used for commercial purposes. The Bill recognises that adults are free to make their own decisions about sunbed use, but they should also know what dangers are involved. That is why, under the regulations, there will be a requirement that health information should be made available.
	It is also very important that the Bill would prevent operators from advertising unsupported benefits of sunbed use and ensure that all adult sunbed users wear protective eyewear when using a sunbed in a commercial setting. I must point out strongly that the Bill is not regulation for the sake of it. The sunbed industry has already tried to self-regulate and it has failed. Self-regulation has not worked. The Bill is about protecting young people and giving people the information they need to make an informed choice.

Julie Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I shall now talk about the strong evidence base for the Bill.
	Research commissioned by Cancer Research UK last year found that, in England, 6 per cent. of 11 to 17-year-olds-more than 250,000 children-had used sunbeds. That is a shocking statistic. There are worrying hot spots, particularly in places such as Liverpool and Sunderland where 50 per cent. of 15 to 17-year-old girls are using sunbeds. In Wales, 8 per cent. of children aged between 11 and 17 have used a sunbed, and the figure is more than one in five for girls aged between 15 and 17.
	Malignant melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer, is increasing at an alarming rate across the UK. Sunbed use, particularly by those aged under 35, significantly increases the risk of developing skin cancer in later life, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said. About 2,000 people each year die from malignant melanoma and it is now the most common cancer in young adults aged 15 to 34. People from the most affluent areas have better malignant melanoma survival rates than those from deprived area. The evidence for taking stronger action on sunbeds is clear.

Julie Morgan: Yes, there are many examples of young people who become addicted and feel that they cannot manage unless they go to a salon continually. They might think of going once a month, but they end up going once-and sometimes more than once-a week. We know that such activity is extremely dangerous because of its long-term consequences, so I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
	COMARE also emphasises that sunbeds are not a safe way of obtaining vitamin D
	due to the potential carcinogenicity and the high frequency of acute side-effects.
	By using them, people risk becoming sunburnt and damaging their skin. In south Wales, we had a very troubling example of a young woman aged 14 who went expressly against her parents' wishes to an unstaffed sunbed salon and suffered 70 per cent. burns. That was absolutely horrific, and through this legislation we want to try to prevent such incidents from occurring.
	The UK's national skin cancer prevention campaign, SunSmart, says that
	the amount of sun needed to make enough vitamin D is always less than the amounts that cause tanning.
	We do not need a sunbed to get our vitamins. Any assumption that we do is mistaken. I am concerned, because young people believe that they are doing no more damage to their skin on a sunbed than they are if they step out their house on a sunny day, and we know that sunbeds are much more dangerous.
	The Secretary of State for Health and the Welsh Assembly Health Minister, Edwina Hart AM, are committed to introducing regulations if the Bill is passed. I am very pleased that it covers England and Wales, and that we have such strong support from the two Governments and, in particular, those Ministers.
	Several colleagues have raised questions about the impact of the legislation on small businesses during the recession.

Julie Morgan: I thank the hon. Lady for her supportive intervention; that would be a good situation to arrive at.
	I want to say again that this is not about regulating for the sake of it. We must protect our children from an activity that can, as we have heard, become seriously and dangerously addictive. I hope hon. Members have seen the briefing from Cancer Research UK, which I thank for its endless work on the issue. It carried out some focus group research with young people under 18, who made comments such as I go
	twice a week with my sister-I'm a bit of an addict, I have a block booking;
	and
	I couldn't see myself going pale again,
	reflecting the point made by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley);
	It's a bit addictive, once you see your tan starting to fade, you need to go back and top it up;
	and
	I went through a phase where I would just not come off them-and I'd keep getting a block booking and going on them...I just loved it.
	In Wales, a further 16 per cent. of the young people interviewed for Cancer Research UK said that although they have not yet used a sunbed, they may do so in future. In addition, one in five children who use sunbeds does so at least once a week. Anecdotally, I understand that it is not only young girls feeling the pressure to get a tan-young men are increasingly using sunbeds as well. This is a problem among our young people, and it requires action now.
	It is important to point out that other countries are taking action. There is specific legislation on sunbed use in Belgium, Finland, France, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. In Scotland, action has been taken in the Public Health etc. (Scotland) Act 2008, which contains measures to better regulate the sunbed industry, including a prohibition on the use of sunbeds by under-18s. It is very important that we protect under-18s in England and Wales as well. Why should minimum health, safety and good practice guidelines be met in other countries, but not here? We must recognise that under-18s are still able to use sunbeds with ease in England and Wales, often in coin-operated, unsupervised salons. We have a duty to act.
	We also have a duty to act on public opinion, remembering that 87 per cent. of the public support banning under-18s from using sunbeds.

Julie Morgan: That is an essential point to make. It is important that the House supports the Bill, because we have the support of the public and all the organisations involved in the field. The only effective way to prevent under-18s from using sunbeds is to ensure that salons are supervised, and the only way to ensure that adults can make informed choices is to ensure that information is available to them at the time of use.
	There has been a tremendous campaign to get legislation such as this on the statute book and we have had support from a wide range of people. We have a real opportunity to protect children from sunbeds while we have the chance to do so. The Bill could save lives. I hope that Members will support it today, and I commend it to the House.

Sarah Teather: The fact that some people want to ban smoking is not an argument for not banning smoking for children. Presumably the hon. Gentleman does not disagree that we should stop children smoking?

Philip Davies: I do not disagree with that. I merely highlight the salami-slicer effect of legislation in this place. People who have agendas further down the line use measures such as the Bill as a Trojan horse, which enables them to pursue their other agenda later. Sometimes lines in the sand need to be drawn. I always took the view that I was not elected to Parliament to ban everyone else in the country from doing everything that I do not happen to like. I thought that my duty was to preserve people's individual freedoms. In my short time in the House, I have learned that some hon. Members believe that they come to Parliament to do nothing but ban people from doing everything that they do not happen to like. I want to try to prevent that erosion of our freedoms.
	Hon. Members, particularly on one side of the House, are good at trying to ban people from doing things. I object to that nanny-state approach, whereby we have to impose our views and beliefs on everybody else in the country and are not prepared to let people make up their own minds. I do not believe that Parliament should operate in that way. I would like to think that, as well as trying to protect children, which is a perfectly worthy aim for Members of Parliament, we consider protecting people's freedoms a worthy aim. I regret that that does not happen as often as I would like. The question is whether or not an outright ban is the way to go, but it appears to be the first option.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, North said, quite rightly, that we have tried a voluntary code. There are many decent sunbed operators who do not try to breach the code. They behave extremely responsibly, and there is no particular problem with their operations. We ought to put on record the fact that there are many responsible outlets that do a very good job of protecting children. I would not want us to run away with the idea that this is, in total, an irresponsible industry, because that is not the case. The question is therefore whether or not we ought to adopt the measures in the Bill.
	The hon. Lady claims that the voluntary code has not worked. Whether or not that is the case, it has not worked to the extent that she would like. When there is a disagreement, and someone wants to use their artillery to try to make their case, the first weapon of choice should not be the nuclear option. It seems to me that the nuclear weapon in all these debates is a ban. I am slightly nervous about the fact that after the voluntary code, the next weapon that we take from our artillery is the nuclear option of a ban. I wonder whether other measures could be used to do the job that the hon. Lady is seeking to do, without banning under-18s from using sunbeds.
	I shall come on to discuss the ban. The hon. Lady did not mention it, but it extends beyond a ban on under-18s using sunbeds to children being banned from being in a room in which there is a sunbed. Other measures could have been tried first, such as the one that I mentioned in my intervention. Some 29 American states that recognise the problems caused by sunbed use and want to protect children have introduced a system to tackle the problem. In three states, there are provisions on sunbed use for under-16s; in other states, there is a ban for under-15s; and in others, there is a ban for under-18s. In all cases, people under the stipulated age require parental permission before they can use a sunbed. As a first stage in the process, trying a system of parental permission might be more appropriate. If we reach the stage at which parental permission is still not doing the job that the hon. Lady wants or that cancer charities think necessary, we can revisit the issue.
	I am slightly nervous about going straight for an outright ban. We need to consider the wider picture, which is why I have mentioned parental permission. On so many issues, we send out the wrong message to parents. The premise appears to be-I am sure that many hon. Members disagree with me and will seek to correct me-that the problem with parental permission is that some parents are totally irresponsible, so we have to protect their children. That argument is used to explain why we do not allow parents responsibility on other issues, but I think it is extremely dangerous to go down that route. It instils a culture in which we say to parents, It doesn't matter what you do. It doesn't matter how you bring up your children or whether you take responsibility for this, that or the other. If you don't do it, the state will do it for you. We have seen in recent years how dangerous that route is.
	Surely all hon. Members want parents to take responsibility for their children. The only way in which we can make parents take such responsibility is to give them that responsibility. Rather than saying to parents, It doesn't matter what you do, the state will deal with it for you, it would be far better for this country in the long term if we said to parents, Being a parent is a very very responsible thing. There are certain things that you are responsible for that the state is not going to do on your behalf. You must take responsibility for your own children, because if you don't, no one else will. Society would be far better if parents knew that being a parent involved responsibility, that they could not farm out their responsibilities to all and sundry, and that they had to take those responsibilities for themselves.
	My fear is that the Bill is yet another nail in the coffin of parental responsibility, where the state decides that it does not really matter what parents think or do, because it will take over the running of their children's lives. Whatever the merits of the measure, I worry about the long-term consequences of such an attitude towards public policy on children. As we have seen in recent weeks, there are many cases where we despair at parents' lack of responsibility, but taking more responsibility away does not help to address that.
	I ask the hon. Lady to think again about some of the measures in the Bill. I have no doubt that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and go into Committee, but some parts of it are somewhat excessive. Clause 2, on the duty to prevent sunbed use by children, prevents their entering a restricted zone. I am sure that the hon. Lady will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the Bill not only prevents under-18s from using sunbeds, but does not allow them to be in the same room as a sunbed. If the sunbed is in a big area rather than a private room, the restricted zone becomes the whole area.
	That is my understanding of the measure. Whatever the merits of banning under-18s from using sunbeds, it seems a bit over the top for a whole host of reasons to ban people even from being in a room where there is a sunbed. If a sunbed is in a big, wide open space, other things might be going on at the same time. For argument's sake, let us say that fitness gadgets are available for people to use in the same room. I often hear Members on both sides of the House lecturing people on how they should do more exercise and saying what a shocking problem obesity is in this country. It would be perverse, when we are supposed to be dealing with the problem of obesity, if a Bill that is supposed to stop children using sunbeds ended up preventing them from using exercise bikes or other fitness equipment. I wonder what on earth we are doing. I would like to think that, on reflection, hon. Members would agree that that is slightly perverse and probably somewhat excessive.
	As we have said, adults can make up their own minds about whether they wish to take the risk of using a sunbed. A parent may decide to use a sunbed while they are looking after their young children. The best way for a parent to know that a child is safe is for the child to be sitting in the same room while the sunbed is being used, rather than the child being carted off somewhere else. So why would we want to ban children from being in the same room as a sunbed? If parents wish to use a sunbed, it is understandable that they may wish to have their children close by. In Committee-I fully expect the Bill to make it into Committee-I hope that the hon. Lady will look again at some of these points. I hope that on reflection she will accept that some aspects of the Bill are excessive and might have some perverse outcomes.
	The Bill also includes penalties. The punishment for failing to comply with its requirements is a fine of up to £20,000, which seems excessive to me. However, I seek the hon. Lady's guidance on an apparent contradiction. On the one hand, the Bill suggests that it does not matter if the offender intended for the under-18 to use or be in the same room as a sunbed or took steps to prevent that from happening, because he or she would still be guilty under the provisions of the Bill. On the other hand, the Bill also appears to include a due diligence defence. If someone takes steps to prevent something from happening, they have a due diligence defence, so I do not understand that. I shall give the hon. Lady an example to try to illustrate my point.
	I used to work in retail, which has many age restrictions connected with the sale of goods. For example, alcohol may not be sold to under-18s. If a retailer is charged with selling alcohol to someone aged under 18, they have a due diligence defence if, for example, they can produce training material that shows they train their staff not to do that and refresh that training each year. In that case, the retailer can argue that they took all reasonable steps to prevent alcohol from being sold to an under-age customer. That is only fair, if the retailer has done everything possible to stop such sales.
	I hope the hon. Lady will clarify the due diligence defence and confirm that if the owner of a salon could demonstrate that they had taken all possible precautions to prevent an under-18 from using a sunbed, but they still had, it would qualify as a due diligence defence under the Bill. It is important to try to help responsible operators who are trying to do their best, instead of lumping them in with those who are not taking reasonable steps. The first part of the Bill, which says that it does not really matter whether anybody takes any steps to prevent the offence from taking place, is not particularly helpful. I hope that on reflection she will introduce measures in the Bill to clarify that those operators who do everything possible to prevent under-18s from using sunbeds will be protected and ensure that her fire, so to speak, is directed against those retailers whom she might consider to be more irresponsible.
	It is important to point out that the hon. Lady includes an exemption from the requirements in the Bill for those who use sunbeds for medical treatment. That is a useful and sensible provision because, as she rightly recognises, some people are encouraged to use a sunbed on occasions, for their skin complaints or whatever it might be. It would have been perverse if the Bill had prevented sunbeds from being used for legitimate medical purposes if a doctor had encouraged such behaviour.
	I want to run through some of the research, because that will help to determine whether the measures in the Bill are proportionate. However, we perhaps lack strong recent research-proper, independent research-into the extent of the problem. That includes research not just on how many people use sunbeds-the hon. Lady went through the figures for that-but on the nature of their use, how long people tend to use them for, how many times a year they use them, whether they use them at home or in salons, and people's patterns of use. At this stage it seems that we lack strong, independent research on those issues.
	In 1995, the Health Education Authority published the results of a survey of suntanning and sunbed use, which was commissioned by the Department of Health. Based on the results of that survey, and using the British Photodermatology Group's recommendation that people have
	not more than 20 sessions per year of up to 30 minutes for each session,
	that research concluded that
	people were putting themselves at risk by using sunbeds too often and for long,
	and that
	the public needed more information about the risks of using sunbeds.
	The reason I mention that is that one of the Members on the Government Benches-it might have been the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), but it might not; she will no doubt correct me if it was not her-mentioned evidence that some salons are still advertising the health benefits of using sunbeds, which is irresponsible.  [ Interruption. ] It was not the right hon. Lady who said that; I do apologise.
	On the proportionality of the Bill, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) mentioned the analogy with smoking. I just wonder whether requirements for health warnings would be a better first step, along with making parental responsibility part of the solution. Before we resort to the nuclear option of introducing an outright ban, part of the solution might be to ensure that sunbed operators do not market their products in such an irresponsible way, but have to give clear warnings to people about the dangers of sunbed use, which under-18s would be able to read just as easily as adults. If such irresponsible marketing is being used, we have an opportunity to make a big difference with the messages that we give to people before they use sunbeds. We could have regulations about the size and nature of the warnings, for example, just as we do with the warnings on cigarettes. I therefore ask people to consider whether other steps could be taken before we impose an outright ban.
	Other research into the use of sunbeds was carried out in 1996 by the Sunbed Association. Obviously, that was some years ago, so I am not sure whether the figures are still relevant. However, it is the best information that I have. If other Members have more up-to-date research, perhaps they will be able to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, and give us the benefit of it. At that time, there was a great interest in getting a tan, with 51 per cent. of respondents saying that they had either used a sunbed or intended to do so. Only 7 per cent. of respondents had used one during the previous 12 months, however. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North made the valid point that this is not an issue only for women. They are the majority users of sunbeds, but by no means the only ones. The research found that 9 per cent. of women and 5 per cent. of men-giving an average of 7 per cent. of the population as a whole-had used a sunbed in the previous 12 months.
	It was interesting to discover why people felt that using a sunbed would be of benefit to them. The irony is that the word healthier appeared in many people's responses to that question. The research found that 58 per cent. were using a sunbed because they wanted to look healthier, and that 34 per cent. were doing so because they wanted to feel healthier. They felt that using a sunbed would help them to achieve those things. There is a slight irony in that .
	Some important facts about the extent of the problem need to be borne in mind, and we need to ask how far the Bill will go towards solving it. The vast majority-89 per cent.-of local authority or private sector sunbed users had fewer than 20 sessions a year, and about half had only 10 sessions or fewer per year. I would venture to suggest, therefore, that the extent of sunbed use is not so great that we should impose an outright ban for under-18s.
	Crucially, the research found that, while 89 per cent. of local authority and private sector users took fewer than 20 sessions a year, only 71 per cent. of people with a sunbed at home took fewer than 20 sessions a year. That brings me to a potential flaw in the Bill, because it makes no provision for sunbed use in people's own homes. I wonder whether it might create a perverse incentive, in that people who were no longer permitted to use a tanning shop or even be on the premises might persuade their parents to get a sunbed at home instead. The research shows that sunbed use is much more dangerous for those with a sunbed at home, because it is there and it has already been paid for so they can use it whenever they want to, rather than having to make an effort to go out and pay to use one each time. Has any assessment been made of the likely effect of a ban on the use of sunbeds at home? We might, despite having the best of intentions, be letting the genie out of the bottle and making the problem worse.
	The research also found that 85 per cent. of all users took sessions of 30 minutes or less, and that 95 per cent. did not exceed the European standard that pertained at the time, so it would be dangerous to run away with the idea that many people are using sunbeds for hugely excessive time periods. By definition, some people will be doing so, but I wonder about the extent of such use. Thus, I wonder, again, whether the Bill is proportionate in dealing with the particular problem.
	Crucial to this research was the issue of where people use sunbeds. I accept that the figures I am using are out of date, but I am not sure whether more up-to-date figures from independent research exist.

Si�n James: That is true.
	From those who have suffered with skin cancer, the message is clear and consistent: Do something now. Don't let young people go through what I went through. It is a heartbreaking message. I was interviewed recently for a TV programme on the subject by a well-known celebrity, Nicola Roberts. She said that she had visited somebody who was dying of skin cancer and how difficult it is to explain to the person who is suffering why nothing is happening quickly.
	Young people who are aware of the issues are saying to us, Why don't you lot at Westminster get on and change the law as quickly as possible? Very few people say to me, Don't change the law. Don't bring in regulation. Don't ban use for under-18s. Not one person has yet approached me with that message.
	The Welsh Assembly has led the way in this matter for us in Wales. The Committee on Health, Wellbeing and Local Government conducted an inquiry into sunbeds and found a need for immediate action. I put it on record that its key recommendations included, first, prohibiting under-18s from using sunbeds; secondly, that facilities should be staffed with well-trained staff; and thirdly, that information setting out the potential health risks should be prominently displayed.
	We in south Wales know very well what it is like to be a sunbed hot spot. My constituency has a sunbed parlour on practically every corner. They are in places as diverse as above beauty salons, in hairdressers, in local facilities and even in corner shops. Once one starts looking for salons, it is amazing where one finds them.
	I quote the words of the mother of a 14-year-old, Kirsty McRae, who was very badly burned last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) has already referred to her. In evidence to the Welsh Assembly's Committee on Health, Wellbeing and Local Government, the mother said:
	As a family, we have always taken a responsible attitude to the sun and used the appropriate products, considered the time spent in the sun and the time of day we were in the sun. I am therefore quite happy that in educating her about natural sunlight and sun damage, I did as much as I could as a parent. I had expressly forbidden her to even consider using a sunbed, and, as has been reported previously, I acknowledge that she went against my wishes and she acknowledges her responsibility in that respect as well. The concern is that the operation of such a salon allowed her a facility to misuse the bed.
	Clear warnings are needed. We have updated them, but we need to carry on. Posters need to be prominently displayed and we have to match our work to the campaign. Cancer Research UK, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Teenage Cancer Trust and other cancer charities have raised skin cancer's profile and prepared and distributed documentation.
	There are no health benefits from using sunbeds. There are disbenefits, not benefits, and we need to get that message across clearly. Sunbed use is too cheap at 25p a minute. There are no parents around and it does not matter whether one has a sunbed at home or not, everybody uses sunbeds in communities such as mine. Having a tan is their little bit of glamour. It is so easy to achieve and people can access irresponsible and unstaffed salons. The question is, why are young people starting to tan at such a young age? Children aged 11 to 14 are saying that they want to go to salons and get a tan. We have to address that issue.
	The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) asked about restricted zones, and I understand that, in case of prosecution, the zone-the cubicle or the salon-is defined as a private area. The issue is simple, because one cannot see what goes on in such places, so the zone has to be defined to ensure that, if the young person enters it, there is a clear demarcation demonstrating that they went into an area where they were not allowed. I accept the point about inadvertently wandering into such a zone in a sports facility, but that is why the zone should be clearly defined. We need to know where it is, who is there and who has used it.
	Do I think that sunbeds are dangerous? Yes, I do. Do we know that young people are using them? Yes, we do. It is now time to take action. I hope that my colleagues will join me in arguing for the greater protection of children and young people throughout England and Wales, and support the Bill.

Bruce George: I tried to make an argument, unlike the hon. Gentleman, who came out with a series of nonsensical words from his mind that he just invented this morning. I will carry on with my speech. He should listen to and read about the enormous number of very worthy people and organisations who have supported the Bill, together with the group that I represent. He may not think much of my views, but if he dares to come along to one of our meetings and put those arguments, he will hear a strong set of ripostes.
	An enormous number of reputable organisations take a serious interest in the problems of skin and skin cancer. We are discussing one small aspect of the much broader issue of skin cancer, which the statistics clearly show is rising dangerously, with young people as the main victims. They enthusiastically go into these salons, not knowing what might lie ahead in 20 or 30 years. Not many young people think 20 or 30 days ahead, let alone 30 years. They should know that the figures for skin cancer are rising exponentially. That is without getting on to the big issue of global warming, which is likely to cause even more problems on top of those that are already being experienced.
	In case the hon. Gentleman did not get hold of this document, the Sunbed Association says:
	The Sunbed Association would strongly urge you to use the opportunity at the Second Reading of the proposed Bill...to call for the Bill to be amended to include a requirement of compliance of all sunbeds in operation prior to 1 April 2009 to a maximum irradiance level of 0.3W/m(2). Alternatively, as a minimum, seek a commitment to a timescale for compliance implementation.
	I have talked to the Sunbed Association and am delighted to say that it is supporting the proposals, because it recognises the enormous dangers. It probably knows the problems more than anybody, so to have the largest association of sunbed owners supporting the Bill is a great boost to the campaign.
	No suntan is safe, and the consequences are there for all to see. We know how laxly young people treat the sun, despite the many consequences, and the use of sunbeds increases the risk of skin cancer. As I have said a great deal, the more and earlier an individual uses one, the more the risks rise.
	Cancer Research UK found that of 4,000 sunbed users, 82 per cent. had first used them before they were 35, and some had cancer. A distinguished hospital in Dundee has produced a great deal of research that people ought to examine, as has the Health and Safety Executive. One can examine-not that I do, but it was brought to my attention-the amount of research being produced in other countries and by legislatures elsewhere that have seen the importance of tackling the problem far earlier than we have. That should spur us on.
	My all-party group on skin supports the Bill, and our research has reached the conclusion that a number of sunbed institutions offer seemingly unlimited sessions, have tanning accelerators and high-powered machines, ask for no proof of age, make no comments on the risks for those who have fair skin and offer insufficient information on risks in general. That is the area of the market to which the Bill is targeted. Maybe it is an omission that it does not allow for chasing people into their houses and examining all their equipment, but that is beyond its scope and, I suspect, even beyond the hon. Gentleman if he were enthusiastic about the idea. The Bill is not intrusive, but if others do deem it intrusive, it is so for a purpose and most sane people would welcome it.
	I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made no attempt to filibuster-I do not accuse him of that all. He is entitled to spend 40 minutes talking about anything that he likes, subject to your will, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I hope that the Bill is not seen as party political and that Opposition Members will support it. I hope that time will be found for it, and I really hope that it gets through before the election, whenever that is, so that all parties and all MPs can take credit for the fact that a small piece of legislation might save at least 1,000 lives a year. If that happens, we can all feel satisfied.

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I would go further. Not only are people under 18 unaware but many people over 18 are unaware of the negative side effects, both of using sunbeds and tanning salons and of staying in the natural sun for far too long without sufficient protection. We need much more easily understandable and accessible information, so that people can make informed decisions about what they want to do with their lives.
	Significantly, the Sunbed Association is in favour of the Bill, but there is uncertainty about the number of sunbed outlets. It is estimated that there are 8,000, only one fifth of which are registered with the association. The vast majority are therefore outwith the existing regulatory structure. It would be helpful if the Minister explained either today or perhaps at a later stage what estimate her Department has made of the number of sunbed premises in the country, and whether there is any research on prices and the cost of using sunbeds. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made the point that a session can cost as little as 15p; the cheapest session that I have come across costs 40p, which is peanuts.
	The existing voluntary regulatory structure has not worked, and there is a much bigger agenda to tackle. I am not going to be deflected into discussing it, but we must find ways of reducing the incidence of cancer and of improving five-year cancer survival rates in the UK which, the whole House will know, are extremely poor compared with survival rates in other EU countries. We could do so is by increasing and ring-fencing the public health budget at the Department of Health, and by providing much greater access to information. There is a strong argument for that, as there is a causal link in pockets of socio-economic deprivation to growing health inequalities, which is why we have said that we need to increase the resources going into those areas and why we have introduced our patient premium.
	We in this House should not introduce legislation lightly, but the Bill is moving in the right direction. We need to support informed choice. I am as disappointed as other hon. Members that voluntary regulation of the sunbed industry has proved ineffective, so the Bill is a necessary step.
	The key to the success of any such measure is enforcement, evaluation and monitoring. There is already too much duplication in evaluation and monitoring in national health service structures, and I notice from the impact assessment that the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency will both be responsible for collecting data and pulling the assessment together. It would be much better to have one or the other-I would opt for the HPA. Perhaps as the Bill progresses, we need to look at that detail.
	There is a slightly quixotic reference in the impact assessment-on page 14, for the Minister's officials-to pilot projects. I wonder what pilot projects there could be for an outright ban on the use of sunbeds by those aged under 18.
	Another issue that needs to be thought about as the Bill progresses, which I hope it will, is whether 18 is the correct age. Are we saying that people who are 16 and 17 do not have the ability to make informed choices, or is there specific clinical evidence of a problem with their going on to get melanoma and other skin problems? I have looked for that research and not found it, but it would be helpful to know whether it exists.
	I strongly agree with clause 5, which requires sunbed businesses to display information about the health risks of sunbed use. However, it would be interesting to know much more about that information: who will be responsible for it and will it emanate from the Department? Should that not be in the Bill rather than in subsequent regulations, despite the Secretary of State's assurances that they would follow quickly? I would like GPs and pharmacists also to have a role in disseminating that key information, as well as it being on premises where there are sunbeds.
	Clearly, the objectives of the Bill are to protect young people from harmful effects of sunbed use and to raise their awareness, but there is concern about the equipment that is currently used in many tanning salons in the UK. The Minister will be aware that in 2007, the Government signed up to an EU declaration on the erythemally weighted irradiance level of tubes in sunbeds. As a consequence, all new sunbeds must comply with that limit, but the Government have failed, first, to implement their commitment to ensure that all existing equipment complies with the regulation, and, secondly, to set a time scale for its implementation.
	The directive has already been implemented elsewhere in the EU-Austria, for example, has done so completely, and Denmark and Germany almost completely. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister explained where that has got to. Clearly, it is potentially significantly more damaging for UV output levels to be higher than those of the midday Mediterranean sun, which is why the regulation was introduced. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North and the Minister need to consider amending the Bill to ensure that sunbeds comply with the EU directive, which was supposed to be in operation from 1 April 2009. Alternatively, there should as a minimum be a commitment in the Bill to a time scale for compliance. For the edification of hon. Members, I confirm that the directive is not aimed solely at new sunbeds. It is also retrospective, so all existing sunbeds have to comply.
	The explanatory notes and impact assessment refer to the costs of the Bill, relating to the authorised officer and the enforcement capacity. That seems sensible, but the total cost-supposedly-of these additional responsibilities for every single local authority in England and Wales is assessed at only £100,000. I find that very hard to believe, and we need a much more accurate assessment of the additional responsibilities and costs for local authorities, especially given the deteriorating macro-economic situation and fiscal deficit. Whoever is in power after the next election, that situation will have to be rectified.
	The hon. Members for Cardiff, North and for Swansea, East were right to raise the issue of coin-operated salons, and I share their concern. That is not an acceptable approach. I understand from those in the industry that the Department of Health has been reluctant to discuss the impact of the Bill with those in that sector of the sunbed market. It would be helpful to know whether any research has been done or calculation made about what proportion of a sunbed salon's revenues is generated by under-18s and therefore what impact the Bill would have on the industry.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned the possible displacement impact, encouraging people to have sunbed treatments at home in unregulated conditions, rather than in salons, and that point needs to be considered. I am supportive of the medical purposes exception highlighted in the Bill, but I would like to know whether the Minister thinks that that will have to be achieved by prescription or just on a nod and a wink from a GP or other clinician.
	There is legislation relating to sunbeds in other parts of the world-in the US, as we have heard, and in parts of Europe and Australasia-and we need to know what lessons can be learned from that. Has the legislation made a difference? What contact has the Department had with health departments in those countries to ensure that the Bill has the maximum impact?
	We think that this legislation is going in the right direction. We will support the Bill, but some key issues remain to be addressed, which I hope will come out in Committee.

Gillian Merron: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on bringing the Bill before the House in a well informed manner that also demonstrated enthusiasm and great sensitivity to the importance of the issue. I know that the House will want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James), who has championed the cause and been well supported by many of her colleagues and rightly so. It is a mark of the energy and commitment that my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North and for Swansea, East have shown that the measure has gathered such strong cross-party support.
	I am extremely proud to add my voice to the chorus calling time on under-age sunbed use. Today that chorus has included well supported and informed contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). I am also grateful to the hon. Members for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) and for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) for giving their parties' agreement to the Bill, which I hope will come to fruition.
	Anybody who has spent time outdoors with children will know just how quickly young skin colours and how fast a suntan can become sunburn. Luckily we can see the warning signs and take action to stop children inadvertently harming themselves. That is the essence of what today's Bill is all about. We cannot continue to allow children and young people to burn. The evidence is clear: sunbeds are a health risk, and the risk is greater for young people. I am convinced that legislation is required to protect the health of our young people.
	On that point, perhaps I could give a gentle reassurance to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who unfortunately is no longer in his place. He legitimately asked questions about whether we needed the legislation. When bringing forward legislation, existing routes must of course have been tried first and must have failed, and alternatives must have been sought. I can say to the House that in five areas that has indeed happened. There has been no attempt whatever to jump to new legislation. First, as we have heard a number of times from hon. Members, voluntary self-regulation by the sunbed industry has simply not worked, and the industry acknowledges that.
	Secondly, some local authorities have special licensing powers, but those powers have limited applicability and provisions vary, so they too have not done the job. The Health and Safety Executive has revised its guidance, but that is exactly what it is: simply guidance. That has not done the job either. SunSmart, the national skin cancer prevention campaign, has reported no changes in behaviour among young people in the 16-to-24 age group, in regard to their attitude to protecting themselves from the damage that the sun and sunbeds can cause. So despite attempting to improve young people's awareness, we have not seen the change that we need.
	Lastly, no legislation is in place to deal with this issue. I can assure the House that I have done a thorough job of finding out whether we could achieve the same effect without new legislation, as that would have hastened the outcome of our efforts, but it was just not possible. That is why we are here today. The Bill tackles the problem head on. This is the only way we can protect young people from harming themselves, and this is the earliest opportunity that we have had to bring these provisions into law. The Government fully support the Bill.
	Last night, I was proud to welcome to Westminster Dyllys Firth and Pam Connock. They are cancer survivors from Lincoln and they have done sterling work to raise money for a cancer charity called Candles, and to support the work of Professor Eremin. Their fundraising efforts are legendary. They had the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North last night before I took them to No. 10 to meet the Prime Minister, in recognition of their efforts. They wished my hon. Friend more power to her elbow today, because they felt strongly that we could wait no longer to take action to protect young people from the risk of cancer, and that legislation, information and a change of attitude were now required. We have heard those points being raised today as well.
	My hon. Friend-hand in hand with Cancer Research UK, which is also to be commended-has created a truly exciting and memorable campaign, which has challenged the idea that tanned equals beautiful. Members might have seen the media interest sparked by Nicola Roberts of Girls Aloud when she addressed the parliamentary reception to launch the Bill. Miss Roberts spoke with great passion, and made a health message real and relevant to a generation of young people, particularly girls, who feel under constant pressure to look a certain way and fit in with the crowd, regardless of the cost to their health. The Secretary of State and I were proud to attend the reception and to confirm our support for the Bill. The attention that the campaign has attracted, and the progress of the Bill, shows that with the right combination of legislation and education we can break the invisible chain linking success to suntans.
	Today the House is faced with a simple decision, and we can save lives now. The evidence shows that skin cancer is on the rise. In 2004, there were more than 65,000 new cases of skin cancer. Melanomas, one of the less common but most deadly types of skin cancer, caused more than 1,700 deaths last year in England alone. One study estimated that melanomas from sunbed use cause about 100 deaths a year in the UK. Those deaths are preventable.
	One of the most harmful aspects of skin cancer is the delay between the exposure and the effects. Cases of skin cancer being reported today could be the result of exposure 10 or 20 years ago. Estimates suggest that skin cancer rates will triple over the next 20 to 30 years. We have a generation of people storing up damage for the future, and we have a duty to do all we can to protect young people today so that we can save their lives tomorrow.
	Should the Bill receive Royal Assent, the Government would begin consulting on further regulations-for example, to tackle unsupervised sunbed use-at the earliest possible opportunity, because the evidence is compelling. Over the past decade, the case against the use of sunbeds by under-18s has gradually been building. First, scientists explored the links between sunbed use and skin cancer. In 2003, the World Health Organisation recommended that nobody under the age of 18 should use a sunbed. In 2006, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, which advises the European Commission, also warned of the specific health risks attached to sunbed use. Studies then began to examine the links between sunbed use during childhood and the increased risk of skin cancer.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) asked the use of age of 18. As I have suggested, this limit has been recommended by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, the WHO and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment-COMARE-to whose report I shall refer in a moment. The limit is also understandable and consistent with other age restrictions, for example those relating to alcohol and tobacco.
	Last year was a real turning point, because in June the independent body COMARE reported that exposure to ultraviolet light could cause skin cancer, and that young people were particularly vulnerable to skin damage. In July, the International Agency for Research on Cancer's working group classified sunbeds as carcinogenic to humans for the first time.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I am very fortunate in that, for the second time in my political life-although the first came only a couple of years ago-I have managed to be successful in the ballot. I am grateful to have the opportunity to present the Bill to the House. I am grateful that the Minister is in his place and I hope that I can say things that can command general support. This is not intended to be a matter of party political division, but it is a matter that concerns us all greatly. It is about how we release more money to improve housing and for social housing in all parts of England where the need is significant. I am grateful to my 11 hon. Friends who have shown their support for the Bill and who sponsor it with me.
	This is a simple Bill that seeks to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which contains a section, often referred to in local government circles-section 106. That is the section under which, when a developer applies to a local council for permission to carry out a development, there is a negotiated payment by the developer to the local council that is meant to compensate for the disruption and to pay for the changes that were necessary to the infrastructure as a result of the development.
	One problem with that legislation has been that it has been a bit vague. That is one reason why the Government have started to look for an alternative. In the Planning Act 2008, they decided that they wanted to create something called a community infrastructure levy. They went out to consultation on that last year and in that consultation were some draft regulations. The consultation has finished, but the draft regulations have not yet turned into regulations so we do not yet have in place the community infrastructure levy. In any event, it was never the Government's intention to get rid of section 106 and replace it, but to have both mechanisms operating in parallel. In the draft regulations for the community infrastructure levy, it is proposed to exclude housing from certain categories that could benefit. Section 216(2)(g) of the 2008 Act would be amended to read
	such housing as CIL regulations may specify.
	The intention is to limit the payments for housing.
	I am keen to respond to the needs of boroughs such as mine-Southwark-and to colleagues who are in the joint administration of the council there, as well as to colleagues in all parts of the country whatever the colour of the administration. We want to meet the desperate need for more social housing. We still have a social housing crisis. There are too few affordable homes for rent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) knows as well as anybody. She speaks for us on the matter regularly. Much of our existing stock is in a state of disrepair. I want to allow every possible future revenue stream, from developers and everywhere else, to be used to carry out urgent renovations to local housing stock or to build new homes, if that is what the council wants.
	I shall be relatively brief, because I want the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), who speaks for the Conservatives, my hon. Friend and the Minister to be able to contribute in the hope that they will all be favourably disposed and we can make progress with the Bill.
	Housing has been one of the biggest issues in my constituency for all the 26 years since my election. Southwark is the third largest council landlord in the country and the largest local authority landlord in London. As of last October, 40,485 properties were let to social tenants. The borough is the freeholder for approximately 15,000 properties that people have bought under the right to buy. Things may have changed. In the '70s, nearly 70 per cent. of all housing in the area was social housing; the figure is now down to 45 per cent., but a third of all the houses in the borough are the council's responsibility. The waiting list is still in the order of 15,000. On 1 April last year, 15,000 households were registered with the council as wanting social housing. In the same year, only 3,691 social rented homes became available. Southwark faces the same challenge as everybody else in local government-trying to maximise the amount of housing available when there is such huge demand both from people who need their first home and from people in an overcrowded home wanting to move to a better one.
	I could easily give more figures, but without doing so, I can say that there has been a changing pattern in the provision of social rented dwellings. In England, 25,000-plus new social homes were provided every year at the beginning of the '90s. There was a peak of 57,000 in 1992-93, but the number went right down in 2004-05-the lowest year-to 21,000 new homes a year. It has picked up a little since then, but nothing like enough to meet demand.
	The same pattern applied in London, as my hon. Friend knows well. In the early '90s, just over 4,000 new social homes-council and local authority-came on line over a year. The highest number in any one year was 12,000 in 1995-96, since when the lowest was in 2004-05 when just over 5,330 new homes came on stream. In Southwark, which is obviously the borough of most interest to me, in the last full year, 2008-09, no new dwellings were started, although many dwellings were being built as replacement stock. In the same year, 81 social dwellings were started. None was formally recorded as completed, though many have, happily, been completed in the past few months and people have been happily moving into them. The challenge is still the shortage of social housing.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, our party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) and others launched a policy the other day that would allow us to bring 250,000 empty homes back into use. That is one strategy that we are committed to, and we have set aside the money to do that. We have also made a commitment that, in a future Parliament, income would be used nationally to build new homes, renovate others and make every home, as far as possible over a 10-year period, a warm home. That would create many jobs and insulate homes, but it does not deal with the fact that many local authorities have hesitated to use section 106 money for housing or improvement of housing.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which I entirely understand. What often happens is that the local authority, when consulted by the developer, would prefer the money to be used for improving housing adjacent to the development or for building more housing, rather than for what is strictly infrastructure.
	I shall give the very best example I can. There is a huge development, which has had local support, called the Shard of Glass at London Bridge. It will be the tallest building in London. It has obtained planning permission and there was no significant objection, but it is cheek by jowl with housing estates, mainly local authority ones. When the development was applied for and agreed to, local people asked, What's in this for us? Obviously, it will change their skyline when there is a huge building outside their windows.
	The council in that case has been able to negotiate to get some section 106 money, but what it most needed it for was not what could strictly be called the infrastructure to do with that development. It would rather have used the money for something else. My Bill seeks to give the option-only to give the option, not to be prescriptive-to the local authority to say, We are satisfied that the infrastructure consequences of the development can be met. We do not need to adjust the pavements, re-route the roads or put in more drains. What we need locally is, for example, to insulate the windows of the estate next door so that the noise from the construction work and later, when the building is in use, will not adversely affect the homes on that estate.
	I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to make sure that there is clarity about using the money for such purposes. Some local authorities have taken the risk, as I understand it, and used section 106 money for those purposes. Most of them believed that that was slightly beyond the original purpose, so have not done so. The Bill makes it clear that that is an option if the local authority wants it.
	Following from the hon. Gentleman's good point, I should say that sometimes in a development negotiation, the outcome can be that the developer agrees voluntarily to build some affordable housing next door as part of the development to give money for it to be built or to improve housing.
	My proposals would not change that process, because I seek to ensure that, when local authorities receive the money, they do not need the developer's agreement to undertake the work that they have prioritised. In case the hon. Gentleman does not know, I should say that my party and his party have jointly administered my local authority for the past four years, and his colleague, who is the executive member responsible for housing, agrees with those priorities.
	There is also an independent argument in support of my proposal. Southwark council recently commissioned from the Local Government Information Unit a study to seek advice on how it might maximise revenue to deal with our borough's housing needs. The study's recommendations were published the other day and included the suggestion that central Government accept the shifted allocation of local resources. The study also supported debt restructuring. Southwark has a huge historical debt from housing that no longer exists and it wants to restructure that debt so that it does not have to pay as much in the short term. It would be able to spend less of its income every year on legacy bills and get on with building houses.
	The report also made other proposals on, for example, Government land lending, but it also recommended
	enabling local authorities to make an independent judgment on the use of planning gain, including using commuted sums from private development for the renewal of housing in the immediate area.
	The local authority received the report from an independent non-party body, which said that that proposal was a good option for maximising revenue and for housing.
	We are talking about large sums of money, but, interestingly, there is no simple read-across grid of how much section 106 money goes to every local authority. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and I have worked hard to ensure that her local borough, Lambeth, and my local borough, Southwark, produce those figures, and they have. The most recent estimate relates to 2005-06, when the total value of section 106 obligations in England was £4 billion, and £3 billion is likely to be delivered in practice, so the yearly sum is significant. Birmingham city council signed 43 agreements in 2008-09 worth £5 million; Camden council received almost £3.5 million in 2008-09; Islington council has received £23 million since 2005-06; Southwark council signed 45 agreements in 2007-08 worth £15 million; and Tower Hamlets council has received almost £54 million since 2000. Those significant sums of money could make a big difference, and good local authorities, of which Southwark is one, now produce section 106 reports that list all the money that they receive. There was always a problem with transparency, so communities did not know where the money went, but authorities are now much better. Lambeth, next door, has become much better at sharing and discussing that information with the community, so councils of all colours have realised the benefit of making the process much more transparent.
	The Government were very keen on the decent homes programme, and I supported it. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) launched it when he was Minister for housing, and it was due to end this year, but unfortunately it is not going to, because not all the homes that were planned for upgrading have been upgraded. According to the figures that I have, 305,000 have not been upgraded, and the programme is projected to be £18 billion over budget. It is now accepted that every home in council housing and social housing stock will not be a decent home, as defined by the programme, by 2010.
	Southwark-the borough that I know best-has estimated that it needs £300 million over the next five years to meet the minimum requirements of the decent homes standard, and up to £700 million to meet our local standard. Clearly, we do not have that income available. The council is very clear that we should be allowed to recycle our debt-I raised this with the Minister the other day, and he was not unsympathetic in terms of national policy-and borrow money at lower interest rates. We are often hemmed in by agreements that require us to borrow at 8 per cent., whereas on the commercial market one could get a loan at 2 or 3 per cent. If we were also allowed to use section 106 money, that could make a significant difference to the renovation of our housing stock, which we could carry out ourselves, and to the new-build housing that we could produce.
	I know that the Government have the community infrastructure levy plan in the pipeline. However, given that that project was due to come into operation in April, and that we know that a general election must happen in June at the latest, so Parliament will finish in May at the latest, we must be realistic about its not being a white knight that is going to ride to the rescue. I am therefore keen to see whether we can make this very modest change in legislation. It would change one small bit of one existing Act of Parliament, but in a way that could make a significant difference to every local authority that is a housing authority and a planning authority and is under real pressure to provide more affordable housing. Every council in England would tell Ministers that that is one of the big pressures that they are under, and the Department knows that.
	I hope that colleagues in all parts of the House will allow the Bill to make this a hat trick, and that today or next week it can pass from Second Reading into Committee and come out as a piece of legislation before the general election. I am grateful for colleagues' attention, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Simon Hughes: I hope that the Minister can deal with decent homes relatively quickly because the central issue is the Town and Country Planning Act. Does he accept that, although deals can done between a developer and a council, which mean that a developer can build more social housing, the Bill does not stand in the way of that? It simply gives the local authority the freedom to say, Whatever money we receive from the developer, we can choose whether to spend it on home improvement or home building. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) mentioned home improvement. The choice would be for local councils. Surely the Minister and the Government support that.

David Hanson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing the debate and on, as ever, putting his case strongly and in encouraging terms. He has focused clearly on an important point, which is that, first and foremost, we should not be tolerating antisocial behaviour. Each authority, be it the police, a local council or central Government, should take action on that matter. On behalf of the Government, I commend the focus that he has put on the need not to tolerate antisocial behaviour and to use the many tools and powers available to ensure that we bear down on its causes and the consequences for communities. As he said, communities are often hard pressed by a small number of individuals who make life hell for their neighbours and the rest of their community.
	I was particularly interested to hear of my hon. Friend's constituency experiences with Bassetlaw district council and to hear about the campaign that he is running-I only learned of it in this debate-for a cinema and bowling alley to be used to support an essential part of the alternatives to antisocial behaviour: positive activities for young people. I am sure that he will return to that with gusto outside the Chamber.
	The key point that my hon. Friend raised was about the use of antisocial behaviour powers by local councils. I believe that a real effort is being made by many authorities across the country to use their powers in support of the police; we want the police and other agencies to use their powers to ensure that we bear down on this curse, which still persists in many areas. As he mentioned, this Government have introduced a range of powers over the past 11 or 12 years to help support the tackling of antisocial behaviour and to provide real powers-not just for the sake of it, but to provide a positive outcome for the communities that we all serve. My hon. Friend and you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that acceptable behaviour contracts, antisocial behaviour orders, crack house closure orders, demotion orders, dispersal orders, intervention orders, parenting orders, premises closure orders and fixed penalty notices are but some of the key powers that we have introduced since 1997 to help support communities. As my hon. Friend said, many authorities use those powers and penalties to try to make communities safer, and I pay particular tribute to Manchester city council and Nottingham city council, which he mentioned.
	Let us consider the use of powers to tackle antisocial behaviour in just the six-year period between 2003 and 2009. During that time, nearly 15,000 ASBOs were used across the country; they were used not only by local councils, but by other agencies and organisations. Those ASBOs have had a real impact on antisocial behaviour in the communities in which they were used. They have been coupled with nearly 14,500 parenting contracts, 9,000 antisocial behaviour injunctions and nearly 50,000 acceptable behaviour contracts. Those are just some examples of powers not merely being put on the statute books but being used, in real time, by those with authority to make a difference on the ground.
	I only heard the initial details of my hon. Friend's survey today, but I shall look at it with interest if he will do me the courtesy of sending me a copy. With officials in my office and my colleagues in local government departments and, potentially, in the Welsh Assembly, I shall consider those powers to assess how local authorities are using them. Ultimately, the use of such powers by local councils is a matter for them. They have the power to use them, and, dare I say it, rather like in the House of Commons, the constituents whom they serve have the power to press local councillors. Councils have the authority to use those powers in a positive way.

David Hanson: As I said, the use of those powers is a matter for the local councils. I would be interested to see my hon. Friend's figures because if there are real concerns on the ground, we need to consider what measures we can take with the police, local councils and other agencies to make a difference.
	As my hon. Friend will know, the cost of not taking action is enormous, and not just emotionally for victims and financially for the wider community. Antisocial behaviour costs the taxpayer £3.4 billion a year, and many practitioners need to use their tools and powers to make a difference on the ground. When those powers are used, there is evidence that they make a difference. I would be interested to see the perception levels in the local authorities that my hon. Friend has identified to see whether there is a correlation between high levels of perception of antisocial behaviour and low levels of use of those powers.
	Overall, the perceived levels of antisocial behaviour have fallen since 2003, when nationally they were 21 per cent. We had the British crime survey last week, which showed that 15 per cent. of the population felt that levels of antisocial behaviour were high in the last quarter-September 2009-for which we took a survey result. There has been a downward drive in people's concerns about antisocial behaviour and I would be interested to see whether there is a correlation between perceptions and action in the areas that my hon. Friend mentioned.
	The use of ASBOs, in particular, has been essential in driving down the perception of such behaviour. In 2006, a National Audit Office report on antisocial behaviour found that 65 per cent. of individuals did not re-engage in antisocial behaviour after receiving the first intervention, and ASBOs are a key intervention. So an ASBO or other intervention stopped, immediately and permanently, the antisocial behaviour of 65 per cent. of people the first time around. After the second intervention, that proportion rose to 86 per cent. and, after the third, to 93 per cent. Those individuals who have been involved in antisocial behaviour desist from that after one, two or three interventions. The communities of which they are part, on behalf of which action has been taken, are safer and more confident. We see a rise in confidence in policing and local councils, and falling perceptions of antisocial behaviour. People see a difference in the quality of their lives.
	The public can monitor such progress and do considerable work on the issue by looking at antisocial behaviour levels in their communities. I urge residents of Bassetlaw, Nottinghamshire and every other authority where they feel that these powers are not being used not just to raise those issues with their local councillor but to speak to the antisocial behaviour team, which they should have in their communities. I urge them to speak to their neighbourhood policing officer or their local constable, to use their local police non-emergency number and to look at the Government's website on antisocial behaviour, which is part of our commitment to those who are suffering from harassment. They should use the website to get in touch and ask why the powers are not being used to solve the problems. Those things should be locally driven as much as driven by central Government.
	Last November, through the Justice Seen, Justice Done campaign, we launched a newly developed crime and justice website, part of direct.gov. That is a key way for people to access information about police, crime, justice and antisocial behaviour services. People can look not just to powers such as antisocial behaviour orders; they can nominate areas to be cleaned up by offenders, through the community payback and supporting services in the community schemes. With the policing pledge, those services are extremely important.
	Antisocial behaviour orders work. In Grantham, for example, an individual called Leigh Buff was convicted in May 2007 of assault and public order offences. He was banned from the town centre at night. The antisocial behaviour team worked with him and a year after his order he was allowed to go into the town centre and has not been in trouble with the police since. In Stoke-on-Trent, a young boy of 11 was responsible for a third of all the antisocial behaviour calls the police received over three months. He even went as far as threatening to attack his father with a knife. He bullied another boy in school until his mother took him out of school. On receiving an ASBO, a parenting order and an individual support order, the behaviour stopped. Not only that, the judge in question praised the work of the agencies in that area.
	There is real merit in antisocial behaviour orders. They have been shown to be of value and they work, but we need to do more. I shall indicate what the Government are doing to tackle antisocial behaviour more generally.
	I hope the House is aware, as I am sure my hon. Friend is, that on 13 October 2009 the Home Secretary wrote to all crime and disorder reduction partnerships and community safety partnerships in England and Wales challenging them to develop and publicise minimum standards on antisocial behaviour, and communicate effectively to the public. That includes the use of ASBOs in the local community, and the expectation of their use. We need to take action to reduce perceptions of antisocial behaviour year on year; to give regular updates to the community about what is being done, which I hope will highlight the issues my hon. Friend mentioned; to offer support and practical help to victims of antisocial behaviour; to give residents proper rights of complaint; and to ensure that we take reports of antisocial behaviour seriously by recording and investigating and committing to keep victims informed of the action taken. I have set a target of March 2010 for all authorities to draw up those minimum standards. We are monitoring the work closely, and I suggest that my hon. Friend does the same. One of the key things we want to do is to get out the kind of information he has had to drag out through freedom of information provisions, so that local communities know what is being done in their area.
	In 62 partnership areas where perceptions of antisocial behaviour are high-more than 25 per cent.-we have targeted specific support from the Home Office. Officials from my Department are meeting the partnerships, all of which are undergoing rigorous self-assessment processes. We are looking at their improvement plans to ensure that we up their ante on antisocial behaviour. In the next quarter, we shall be doing that in a very positive way. As part of those plans, members of the antisocial behaviour action squad from central Government are being deployed to provide advice and support, and to ensure that tools such as ASBOs are not just on the statute book but are implemented, where appropriate, so that we make a difference.
	My hon. Friend made the case for positive activity as well as for ASBOs. As he knows, three Departments-the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Children, Schools and Families-have a youth crime action plan, in which we are investing £100 million not just in visible policing after school or stay safe operations to make sure the streets are safe at night for young people, and not just in reparative community-based activity or engaging with hard to reach young people; we are also looking at doing the positive things my hon. Friend mentioned. We want to make sure that we provide activity on Friday and Saturday nights. I went to Liverpool in October to see Friday night activity there. Many activities were going on. A cinema had been hired by the local police and the partnership to ensure that young people, on a particularly difficult night-Hallowe'en-were offered alternative activities. That is important, and I commend my hon. Friend's plans for the use of a cinema in his constituency.
	The Government will not tolerate antisocial behaviour. We have put plans in place to deal with it. Our record shows that the Labour Government have introduced measures which can and should be used. They are effective, they make a difference and they are being used across the country. They should be implemented as a way of reducing that dreadful activity where it occurs.
	I am sure my hon. Friend's survey will highlight the issue in a constructive way. I will look at it and between us, no doubt, we can help to raise the level of activity-not for the council, the Government or Members of Parliament, but for those who are hard pressed in their communities by behaviour that we should not accept and which we need to stamp out. I commend my hon. Friend on raising this debate and I hope we can work together to take action on the issue.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.